Quick Reply

Would you rather believe in God all your life and find out that He that doesn't exist, or not believe in Him all your life, an find out that He does.

I believe the question is actually this....Would you rather live your life like there is a God and die and find out there isn't one, or live your life like there is no God and die and find out there is?

What the...

Jeezum, didn't I just post a counter to this exact idea on the last page, just a couple posts after this quote?

Posted: Sun Nov 13, 2005 8:31 pm

Sinner Wrote:

Curium Wrote:

squeen_of_pades Wrote:

Would you rather believe in God all your life and find out that He that doesn't exist, or not believe in Him all your life, an find out that He does.

I believe the question is actually this....Would you rather live your life like there is a God and die and find out there isn't one, or live your life like there is no God and die and find out there is?

What the...

Jeezum, didn't I just post a counter to this exact idea on the last page, just a couple posts after this quote?

I saw it, but I was telling her that's how the question really goes, because she was unsure of it when she posted it...

Curium

Offline

Curium

Offline

Posted: Mon Nov 14, 2005 11:11 am

Sorry if I confused people with posting the almost exact same thing as squeen of pades...I was just letting her know that's how the question really goes, because she was unsure of how it really went. Again, sorry for the confusion...and the redundancy of my post...

Posted: Mon Nov 14, 2005 11:43 am

Tangled Up In Blue Wrote:

However, saying that 'Faith is the pinnacle of intelligence' without modifying it with something along the lines of 'in my opinion' is to make a fact-claim -- i.e. it presents the statement as an objective fact. A statement does not have to known to be true or false to be a fact-claim; for example, saying '2+2=5' is a fact claim, even if it happens to be an erroneous one. '2+2=4' can be either a fact-claim or an opinion, depending on how it's presented: 'I believe that 2+2=4' is an opinion; '2+2=4' is a fact-claim. The same goes for 'Faith is the pinnacle of intelligence', which you presented as a fact-claim, not a subjective opinion.

This is very much what I was attempting to point out. Unfortunately, it seems that CTI believes that we should be able to tell the difference between his objective claims and his subjective opinions - even when he is intentionally trying to mislead us into believing his subjective claims are his objective opinions.

GendouVice Captain

Offline

ioioouiouiouio

Offline

Posted: Mon Nov 14, 2005 3:14 pm

Gendou Wrote:

This is very much what I was attempting to point out. Unfortunately, it seems that CTI believes that we should be able to tell the difference between his objective claims and his subjective opinions - even when he is intentionally trying to mislead us into believing his subjective claims are his objective opinions.

I know when I am saying something objective. You know when I am saying something objective. The people who don't know are the ones who I am attempting to mislead.

It's quite simple really, if a bit asinine.

Posted: Mon Nov 14, 2005 5:04 pm

Cometh The Inquisitor Wrote:

The people who don't know are the ones who I am attempting to mislead.

Well do kindly stop it. Don't try to obfuscate your point just because you can. If you're stating an opinion, then present it as an opinion. Fair warning: If you continue to present subjective opinion as objective fact then certain people (by which I mean 'me') are going to call you on it and ask you to support your claims (burden of proof and all that), regardless of whether or not you're trying to mislead people or not. Intentionally misleading people is, to put it bluntly, rather childish and really does nothing to further a debate.

Tarrou

Offline

Mechanism

Offline

Posted: Tue Nov 15, 2005 1:13 am

squeen_of_pades Wrote:

But I think "good" is objective, so the reason for doing good is because it is natural, you can't get away from it.

All instincts are natural to us. The fact that (almost) all people react in similar ways to antisocial or cooperative behaviour does not imply that there is an objective morality.
Actually, that can be explained easily enough otherwise, considering that humans evolved as a social species, and so one is fitter if one is helpful to the group.

squeen_of_pades Wrote:

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at with the consequences.

Consequence.
Well; what's the difference between an objective morality existing and not existing?
If doing good (or bad) does not have any consequence whatsoever, there is no difference.
More importantly, if there were consequences, why would 'good' be 'good' if you didn't like the conseuqence?
I don't think it would be, so what I'm saying, is that whether something is 'good' or 'bad' depends on what your goal is.

Anything you don't get?

Posted: Tue Nov 15, 2005 7:18 pm

Mechanism Wrote:

I don't think it would be, so what I'm saying, is that whether something is 'good' or 'bad' depends on what your goal is.

First off, does this make you on "the ends justifies the means" side of things, or by goals do you not mean any ultimate goals?

Mechanism Wrote:

All instincts are natural to us. The fact that (almost) all people react in similar ways to antisocial or cooperative behaviour does not imply that there is an objective morality.
Actually, that can be explained easily enough otherwise, considering that humans evolved as a social species, and so one is fitter if one is helpful to the group.

You prefer to take the good out of nature, I prefer to say the two are related.
Both are opinions based on pure feeling and upbringing. I can only argue, but there wouldn't be any reason, and I wouldn't be able to convince anybody of anything.

Mechanism Wrote:

if there were consequences, why would 'good' be 'good' if you didn't like the conseuqence?

Because the good is more influencial then the consequences; because we have the ability to be compassionate.
I donate to the poor = good
I'm out some hard earned cash = consequence
But I'm a compassionate person, and enjoy doing things for others, so I don't care about the consequence, even though I really can feel it take a toll on me. (It's not easy trying to put oneself through school and only being able to work part-time)

I guess that makes me a "the end justifies the means" kinda girl, only a little though.

Hmm... I never would have thought about it that way before.

squeen_of_pades

Offline

Mechanism

Offline

Posted: Tue Nov 15, 2005 11:35 pm

squeen_of_pades Wrote:

First off, does this make you on "the ends justifies the means" side of things, or by goals do you not mean any ultimate goals?

I'm not speaking about what the end justifies; (justice is an blurry concept to me anyway).
By goal, I mean any goal that you have. All of one's desires are goals, for example; goals with varying priority.

squeen_of_pades Wrote:

You prefer to take the good out of nature, I prefer to say the two are related.

I do not 'prefer to take the good out of nature'.
It's not a matter of preference, and I'm arguing that there never was objective 'good' in nature.

squeen_of_pades Wrote:

Both are opinions based on pure feeling and upbringing.

Depends what you mean.
--I'm fairly sure that I just presented you with a justified argument.

squeen_of_pades Wrote:

I can only argue, but there wouldn't be any reason, and I wouldn't be able to convince anybody of anything.

I beg to differ.

squeen_of_pades Wrote:

Because the good is more influencial then the consequences; because we have the ability to be compassionate.

I think that you still don't understand.
A major part of what I said is that whether something is 'good' utterly depends on consequences.
>"What's the difference between an objective morality existing and not existing?
>If doing good (or bad) does not have any consequence whatsoever, there is no difference."
That was, a consequence from the 'goodness'. (Which, one would assume, would be something that you want, otherwise why's it good?)

squeen_of_pades Wrote:

I donate to the poor = good
I'm out some hard earned cash = consequence

That's not what I mean by consequence.
And WHY is it good?
If there's not a reason, then how can it be so?

Posted: Tue May 15, 2007 5:48 pm

are you nuts or just out of your mind?? of course there is. just if you believe in it or not.

I do not believe there is a God. Quite simply, there is no evidence, no proof, simply preachers and stories that tell you there is.

There are simply too many flaws in religion for me to believe. I spent a majority of my life as an agnostic, but now that I have finally realized there is no God, I feel so much happier than before--If all there is is here and now, I'm going to try to make the world a better place because I CAN, not because it'll get me into heaven. It's all about the greater good, not getting your own soul into heaven.

Posted: Sat Jul 21, 2007 2:58 am

Based on my experience with what I consider the spirit world, in all probability there is a God.

I believe it is only the conscious mind, only the physical body, that is polluted enough to doubt God.

RatTurd

Offline

Medanite

Offline

Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2007 6:43 am

I don't ever want to be alone again...

Taken from two of my myspace blogs about it:

Does God Exist? (Logical Evidence):

Does God exist? I find it interesting that so much attention is given to this debate. The latest surveys tell us that over 90% of people in the world today believe in the existence of God or some higher power. Yet, somehow the responsibility is placed on those who believe God does exist to somehow prove that He really does exist. To me, I think it should be the other way around.

However, the existence of God cannot be proven or disproved. The Bible even says that we must accept by faith the fact that God exists, "And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to Him must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who earnestly seek Him" (Hebrews 11:6). If God so desired, He could simply appear and prove to the whole world that He exists. But if He did that, there would be no need for faith. "Then Jesus told him, 'Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed'" (John 20:29).

That does not mean, however, that there is not evidence of God's existence. The Bible declares, "The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of His hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard. Their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world" (Psalm 19:1-4). Looking at the stars, understanding the vastness of the universe, observing the wonders of nature, seeing the beauty of a sunset – all of these things point to a Creator God. If these were not enough, there is also evidence of God in our own hearts. Ecclesiastes 3:11 tells us, "…He has also set eternity in the hearts of men…" There is something deep down in our beings that recognizes that there is something beyond this life and someone beyond this world. We can deny this knowledge intellectually, but God's presence in us and through us is still there. Despite all of this, the Bible warns us that some will still deny God's existence, "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.'" (Psalm 14:1). Since over 98% of people throughout history, in all cultures, in all civilizations, on all continents believe in the existence of some kind of God – there must be something (or someone) causing this belief.

In addition to the Biblical arguments for God's existence, there are logical arguments. First, there is the ontological argument. The most popular form of the ontological argument basically uses the concept of God to prove God's existence. It begins with the definition of God as "that than which no greater can be conceived." It is then argued that to exist is greater than to not exist, and therefore the greatest conceivable being must exist. If God did not exist then God would not be the greatest conceivable being - but that would contradict God's very definition. A second is the teleological argument. The teleological argument is that since the universe displays such an amazing design, there must have been a Divine designer. For example, if earth were even a few hundred miles closer or further away from the sun, it would not be capable of supporting much of the life it currently does. If the elements in our atmosphere were even a few percentage points different, every living thing on earth would die. The odds of a single protein molecule forming by chance is 1 in 10243 (that is a 10 followed by 243 0's). A single cell is comprised of millions of protein molecules.

A third logical argument for God's existence is called the cosmological argument. Every effect must have a cause. This universe and everything in it is an effect. There must be something that caused everything to come into existence. Ultimately, there must be something "un-caused" in order to cause everything else to come into existence. That "un-caused" something is God. A fourth argument is known as the moral argument. Every culture throughout history has had some form of law. Everyone has a sense of right and wrong. Murder, lying, stealing, and immorality are almost universally rejected. Where did this sense of right and wrong come from if not from a holy God?

Despite all of this, the Bible tells us that people will reject the clear and undeniable knowledge of God and instead believe a lie. Romans 1:25 declares, "They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator - who is forever praised. Amen." The Bible also proclaims that people are without excuse for not believing in God, "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities - His eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse" (Romans 1:20).

People claim to not believe in God because it is "not scientific" or "because there is no proof." The true reason is that once people admit that there is a God, they also must realize that they are responsible to God and in need of forgiveness from God (Romans 3:23; 6:23). If God exists, then we are accountable for our actions to Him. If God does not exist, then we can do whatever we want without having to worry about God judging us. I believe that is why evolution is so strongly clung to by many in our society - to give people an alternative to believing in a Creator God. God exists and ultimately everyone knows that He exists. The very fact that some attempt so aggressively to disprove His existence is in fact an argument for His existence.

Allow me one last argument for God's existence. How do I know God exists? I know God exists because I speak to Him every day. I do not audibly hear Him speaking back to me, but I sense His presence, I feel His leading, I know His love, I desire His grace. Things have occurred in my life that have no other possible explanation other than God. God has so miraculously saved me and changed my life that I cannot help but to acknowledge and praise His existence. None of these arguments in and of themselves can persuade anyone who refuses to acknowledge what is so plainly clear. In the end, God's existence must be accepted by faith (Hebrews 11:6). Faith in God is not a blind leap into the dark, it is safe step into a well-lit room where 90% of people are already standing.

Is God Real? (Physical Evidence):

We know that God is real because He has revealed Himself to us in three ways: in creation, in His Word, and in His Son, Jesus Christ.

The most basic proof of God's existence is simply what He has made. "For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that [unbelievers] are without excuse" (Romans 1:20). "The heavens declare the glory of God / And the firmament sheweth His handiwork" (Psalm 19:1).

If I found a wristwatch in the middle of a field, I would not assume that it just "appeared" out of nowhere or that it had always existed. Based on the watch's design, I would assume it had a designer. But I see far greater design and precision in the world around us. Our measurement of time is not based on wristwatches, but on God's handiwork—the regular rotation of the earth (and the radioactive properties of the cesium-133 atom). The universe displays great design, and this argues for a Great Designer.

If I found an encoded message, I would seek out a cryptographer to help break the code. My assumption would be that there is an intelligent sender of the message, someone who created the code. How complex is the DNA "code" that we carry in every cell of our bodies? Does not the complexity and purpose of DNA argue for an Intelligent Writer of the code?

Not only has God made an intricate and finely tuned physical world, He has also instilled a sense of eternity in the heart of every person (Ecclesiastes 3:11). Mankind has an innate perception that there is more to life than meets the eye, that there is an existence higher than this earthly routine. Our sense of eternity manifests itself in at least two ways: law-making and worship.

Every civilization throughout history has valued certain moral laws, which are surprisingly similar from culture to culture. For example, the ideal of love is universally esteemed, while the act of lying is universally condemned. This common morality—this global understanding of right and wrong—points to a Supreme Moral Being who gave us such scruples.

In the same way, people all over the world, regardless of culture, have always cultivated a system of worship. The object of worship may vary, but the sense of a "higher power" is an undeniable part of being human. Our propensity to worship accords with the fact that God created us "in His own image" (Genesis 1:27).

God has also revealed Himself to us through His Word, the Bible. Throughout scripture, the existence of God is treated as a self-evident fact (Genesis 1:1; Exodus 3:14). When Benjamin Franklin wrote his Autobiography, he did not waste time trying to prove his own existence. Likewise, God does not spend much time proving His existence in His book. The life-changing nature of the Bible, its integrity, and the miracles which accompanied its writing should be enough to warrant a closer look.

The third way in which God revealed Himself is through His Son, Jesus Christ (John 14:6-11). "In the beginning was the Word: the Word was with God, and the Word was God. . . . And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us" (John 1:1, 14). In Jesus Christ "dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily" (Colossians 2:9).

In Jesus' amazing life, He kept the entire Old Testament law perfectly and fulfilled the prophecies concerning the Messiah (Matthew 5:17). He performed countless acts of compassion and public miracles to authenticate His message and bear witness to His deity (John 21:24-25). Then, three days after His crucifixion, He rose from the dead, a fact affirmed by hundreds of eyewitnesses (1 Corinthians 15:6). The historical record abounds with "proof" of who Jesus is. As the Apostle Paul said, "This thing was not done in a corner" (Acts 26:26).

We realize that there will always be skeptics who have their own ideas concerning God and will read the evidence accordingly. And there will be some whom no amount of proof will convince (Psalm 14:1). It all comes down to faith (Hebrews 11:6).

There, hope that answered it. ^.^

...Now that I have found a love that never ends.

Posted: Fri Oct 19, 2007 4:35 am

Look at a person or animal, there eyes can see, their ears can hear, their noses can smell. And don't get me started on the flowers.

These things coming from a random explosion in space is unlikely.

Of course there's a God.

Night WingsFtty

Offline

Archon Logos

Offline

Posted: Fri Oct 19, 2007 9:10 am

I most believe and am convinced that there is a God who created the world the universe. The amazing order in the universe favors the idea that there is a God who established that order.

For example, if I put ten pennies in my pocket numbered each from 1 to 10, the chances of pulling out the number 1 penny is on in ten. If I place the number 1 penny back in my pocket and mix them all together again, the chances of pulling out penny number 2 is one in a hundred. The chances of repeating this same procedure and coming up with penny number 3 is one in a thousand. To do so with all the pennies (1 through 10) in order would be one in ten billion! What are the odds of an orderly and complex universe arising without a Creator?

Noting the order and design of the universe, Kepler (the founder of modern astronomy and discoverer of the Three Planetary Laws) said, "The undevout astronomer is mad." The most simple and reasonable explanation for the order and design in the universe is that there is a God who ordered and designed it this way.